If Anything Else Comes to Mind… Better Keep It to Yourself? Delayed Recall is Discrediting—Unjustifiably
Inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts are perceived as indicative of inaccuracy and reduce the witnesses’ credibility. Reminiscence, the delayed recall of previously not recalled information, is generally interpreted as a type of inconsistency. Even though it does not necessarily involve the falsity of the statements, reminiscence presents a counterintuitive instance with mostly unknown reliability. Two studies empirically assessed the accuracy of reminiscent items after retention intervals of up to 1 week and contrasted them with peoples’ beliefs regarding their accuracy. In line with an implicit assumption of memory fading with the passage of time, delayed recall of previously unmentioned details was judged to be unreliable. In contrast, actual accuracy of reminiscent details was consistently high and even comparable to immediate recollections. Although participants generally underestimated accuracy, it was most pronounced in the case of reminiscence. The findings are discussed within the context of contemporary legal practice, such as jury instructions.
KeywordsEyewitness memory Reminiscence Implicit theories Credibility Judgment
This research was partially supported by Grant Number GRK 772 by the German Research Foundation. I am grateful to Ronald Fisher, Susanne Haberstroh, Ulla Martens and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.
- Bailey, F. L., & Rothblatt, H. B. (1985). Successful techniques for criminal trials. Rochester, NY: Lawyers Co-operative.Google Scholar
- Ballard, P. B. (1913). Obliviscence and reminiscence. British Journal of Psychology Monograph Supplements, 1, 1–82.Google Scholar
- Brewer, N., Potter, R., Fisher, R. P., Bond, N., & Luszcz, M. A. (1999). Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 297–313. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199908)13:4<297:AID-ACP578>3.0.CO;2-S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Über das Gedächtnis. Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie [Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology]. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
- Fisher, R. P., Brewer, N., & Mitchell, G. (2009). The relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony: Legal versus cognitive explanations. In T. Williamson, R. Bull, & T. Valentine (Eds.), Handbook of psychology of investigative interviewing: Current developments and future directions (pp. 121–136). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fisher, R. P., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). The relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. In G. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran, & C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology, law, and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 21–28). Oxford: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Florida Supreme Court Standard Jury Instructions 3d (2009). Retrieved February 1, 2011, from www.floridasupremecourt.org/.
- New York Criminal Jury Instructions 2d. (2007). Retrieved from www.nycourts.gov/cji/ on April 12, 2011.
- Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions. (2010). Retrieved February 1, 2011, from www.ce9.uscourts.gov/.
- Sixth Circuit Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions. (2005). Retrieved from www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/crim_jury_insts.htm/ on April 12, 2011.
- Steward, M. S., Steward, D. S., Farquhar, L., Myers, J. E. B., Reinhart, M., Welker, J., … Ornstein, P. A. (1996). Interviewing young children about body touch and handling. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61, 1–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5834.1996.tb00554.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar